SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The event today was the
notification by the Secretary of the Treasury to the President that he
had accepted the findings of a panel concerning modified semiautomatic
weapons. And the panel was put together at the direction of the
President November 14, 1997, to examine the issue of whether or not guns
that were banned in 1989 were in fact modified to circumvent the ban,
and in fact whether or not they met the sporting purposes test.

In 1968 the Gun Control Act set up a standard, a standard saying
that firearms generally could not be imported into the country unless
they were generally seen as being particularly suitable or readily
adaptable to sporting purposes. In 1989 the findings were that some 43
guns did not meet that criteria.

What happened is manufacturers of those same guns took off from
the weapons the indicia of -- what were then decided to be indicia of
military weapons -- bayonet studs, flash suppressors, night sights,
folding stocks -- and in fact began to export to this country in essence
the same weapon, the same functioning weapon.

And what this study showed is, number one, that the weapons -- we
did a fairly thorough analysis and examination of questionnaires, of
hunting guides, of a literature search, of editors of hunting magazines.
This study showed that the guns were not used for sporting purposes for
the most part, and secondly, that they all had large-capacity military
magazines -- magazines with a capacity of over 11 rounds. And this was
seen to be a fundamental feature of military-style weapons.

So what happened is the study looked at five design types which
encompassed a total of 59 weapons, and all but one of those weapons were
deemed to be inappropriate because they were, in effect, military-style
weapons that were not used for sporting purposes.

That's it in a nutshell. The report is out. I think it's a very
well done report. It's available to you. It's also available on the
Internet. It's a 38-page report, but it has lots of tabs in it and it
has pictures of the weapons as they were and as they were modified, and
you'll see that they look essentially the same.

Q Do you know how many of these weapons -- had all of these
weapons been licensed and the licenses were on hold, and how many
weapons actually made it into the United States to be warehoused?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Since 1991, about 425,000 of
these weapons have been imported. However, there are pending 600,000 --
permits for the importation of up to 600,000 of these weapons. And
there are pending applications of about 1 million more for permits.
When I say -- the numbers I'm using are the maximum numbers for weapons
that may be imported. That's what they asked for; it doesn't
necessarily mean they're going to import that number of weapons.

Q Can you tell us, the M-1 replica that was used in Jonesboro is
not included in any of this; is that correct?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's right. These only deal
with imported weapons. The M-1 is a domestically produced weapon.

Q So none of the weapons allegedly used by the two kids in
Jonesboro would have been covered under any of these new bans.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's correct.

Q Including the clip, the 30 --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, the clips, you have to go
back to the 1994 assault weapons ban. That law prospectively banned the
manufacture of clips of more than 10 rounds. I don't know --

Q You don't know whether --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Through the media I've learned
that they may have had some 30-round clips in their possession. I don't
know when they were manufactured.

Q So what does this today do -- Attorney General Reno mentioned
the tragedy of Jonesboro. What could Americans look at here and say,
well, this makes them feel better, this is the right thing to do,
considering what happened in Jonesboro?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, we have -- and you'll see
it in the report -- indications that these weapons have been used in
crimes, and the number of traces that these weapons are undergoing, or
the number of these weapons involved in traces, has been increasing in
the last three years. So I don't know if you can draw a direct
correlation between the events in Jonesboro, but clearly we feel that
these weapons have been used in crimes, will continue to be -- or would
have continued to be used in crimes if in fact we didn't take this step.

Q But weapons of these types can be manufactured here in the
United States now.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, this ruling has to do with
just imported weapons. Now, there are weapons -- of course, if you look
at the 1994 assault weapons ban, that ban affects 19 specific weapons.
So if they don't fit into -- they're not imported and they don't fit
into this criteria and they don't fit into the ones specific enumerated
in the 1994 law, yes.

Q But, theoretically, if I'm a manufacturer of guns in the United
States, I could manufacture a gun like the one that's been banned for
import today.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. Well, the large-capacity
magazines have been banned in 1994.

Q You can still build the same kind of gun in this country as the
ones that you're banning as long as it's sports-modified, right?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. The sports provision really
has to do only with the 1968 law. But again, you are limited as far as
the magazine capacity in this country.

Q But my point is, if there is a pent-up demand for these kinds of
guns, which the 1.6 million applications would assume that there is, if
there is still a demand, then for a domestic gun manufacturer, I mean,
now is the time to step in and meet that demand, right?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I guess we'll have to see
what the Congress's response is if, in fact, that happens.

Q That would be allowed?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Again, that depends. If you look
at the magazine capacity, which was prohibited by Congress in 1994,
magazines of over 10 rounds, if, in fact, they manufactured a weapon
that looked like this that had a magazine capacity less than 10 rounds,
it could happen at this point in time.

Q From a technical standpoint, the weapons that you're banning
today, mechanically, with the exception of the magazines, are very
little different from other semiautomatic weapons that are allowed on
the market, correct?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Mechanically, yes. But the whole
issue here is large capacity military magazines. I mean, mechanically,
most guns work the same way, so the question is how many rounds can you
put out in a short period of time.

Our view is that these are in essence military weapons. You've
just taken off some of the accoutrements of military weapons, but you
still have the same type of functioning weapon, particularly if you have
a large-capacity magazine. So if you put out 30 rounds in a very short
period of time, you've got a military weapon.

Q A semiautomatic weapon is a semiautomatic weapon is a
semiautomatic weapon.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's correct.

Q It's just the magazines that are different.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's right. And that's what
we're focusing on with this decision.

Q Some anti-gun groups say that this is just a band-aid, that
you're not going far enough, and that within a few months or a year or
two the same kind of loopholes and circumvention will occur that will
make these kinds of guns available on the U.S. market. Is the
administration planning any steps to prevent that from happening?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think we have to respond to the
situations as they occur. What this decision does is add large-capacity
magazines to the military characteristics that were used in the 1989
decision. Now, again, it's important to focus on the fact that we're
only looking at the universe of weapons that we were directed to look
at. We're not making this a larger ban than the 58 weapons that we
looked at. If in fact something develops akin to what you're talking
about, then I think we'd have to respond -- or we may respond in some
fashion, or Congress may respond. But this decision, again, is only
focused on 59 weapons.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. We're talking about these
weapons now. These are imported weapons. So if you had an imported
weapon -- again, the criteria here is, are they generally acceptable and
used for sporting purposes.

Q But I'm trying to distinguish the difference between the
domestic variety and the imported variety. If you have a domestic
weapon that takes a magazine, unless of course you control what
magazines people have, then how would it be different from the imported
weapons that you banned today? In other words, you're banning any
weapon that can hold a magazine, or only weapons that have magazines of
larger than 10 rounds, and that's not the weapon, that's the magazine.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's correct. That's right.
Well, these weapons are configured to accept magazines of greater than
10 rounds, so that's what we're doing. We're banning these weapons
because they can -- first of all, not used for sporting purposes based
on our survey and, secondly, can accept a magazine greater than 10
rounds. Now, domestically, that's a whole other issue.

Q So, in other words, if you were an exporter from somewhere else,
you could send in a weapon here that would only take a magazine that
would take 10 rounds, and that would be legal.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Correct.

Q Do you know what the difference is between the -- what is it,
whatever it is -- the one that was allowed and the 58 that were
disallowed?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It doesn't -- it just doesn't
have the capacity, the capability of taking a large-round magazine. I
think it has to do with the aperture where you fit the magazine in.

Q So can you give us some statistics on how often these kinds of
weapons that are being banned today are used in homicides and other
crimes?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't know how specific we can
get. If you look in this report here, there are a couple of charts that
talk about crime use and it talks about the fact that they're going up
as far as the number of traces are concerned. In other words, traces
take place when a gun is used in a crime -- the crime gun. You put it
into ATF, for instance, and they trace the gun as to where it came from.
Those numbers are going up. There is some anecdotal information in here
about crimes that are taking place. I can't tell you specifically how
many of them are used for homicides. Quite frankly, the information is
not that refined.

Q And if I understand you correctly, 425,000 of these got into the
United States and were sold prior to the freeze you established.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes.

Q I'm a little unclear on the magazine issue. Take one of these
weapons that's banned now under this order, can you make it legal for
import simply by clipping a 10-round magazine on it?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The criteria really is the
sporting purposes test. The Secretary of the Treasury has a lot of
discretion. If you look again in this report, you will see a lot of
legislative language and history from the 1968 report. So what we did
was, we did a survey that, are these guns being used for sporting
purposes. The answer came back: Certainly not -- some are, but a very
small number.

In addition to that, then you look at the magazine issue which is
indicia to us that it is a military style weapon. So the criteria is
the sporting purposes use and, in addition, the magazine. But the
controlling is whether or not these are used for sporting purposes.

Q So the answer is clearly no; putting a 10-round magazine on any
one of these weapons will not make it legal for --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I wouldn't say it's clearly no.
I think there is an appeals process here that will take place within the
next 30 days, and that might be an argument that would be made by a
particular manufacturer. I can't answer that question --

Q The position of the Treasury Department in that argument would
be that putting a 10-round magazine on one of these weapons would not
make it legal for import.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Correct.

Q Are large-capacity magazines and smaller magazines the same
size, or is it something about the mechanism in the weapon that makes it
capable of taking more than 10 rounds in rapid fire?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It's something about the aperture
and the mechanism of the weapon, because you have to be able to have
enough power to pump out these number of rounds, is my understanding.

Q In the appeals process, does the Treasury Secretary have the
right to just move in unilaterally and say, "I'm going to do what I'm
going to do," or can he be preempted by the courts or whatever?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Certainly there's always a
possibility of litigation. The appeals process is for 30 days, but that
would not forestall litigation moving forward on another front.

Q So presumably, this could go on for a long time.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The decision has been made by the
Secretary, we're going forward as of today, and the decision will be in
place -- it's in place today. Now, whether someone goes forward in
litigation and looks for some sort of injunctive relief, I can't predict
that. But the decision is in effect today.

Q How does the appeals process work? How does that move forward?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There's a 30-day period of time
in which individuals who feel aggrieved can appeal directly to the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. There is a kind of a standard
process for these appeals.

Q This is kind of -- would you characterize this as a low-level
bureaucratic review that kind of got higher profile because of the
President's interest in the case?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I wouldn't characterize it as
that. I would say it's a relatively high-level review. There were two
committees, as explained in the book here. There was a technical
committee made up of ATF and people from the Treasury, and then there
was a committee at a higher level that -- oversight. This is direction
from the President to the Secretary of the Treasury to do a report under
20 days, and that's what we did. It's pretty high level for us.

Q How long has the report been ready?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh, I would say perhaps a week,
yes, about a week.

Q Was it stepped up at all because of Jonesboro?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, sir. We had a 120-day time
limit. As a matter of fact, we went over it a little bit.

Q What happens to the guns -- they're what, about 500,000 or
600,000 guns that are actually warehoused now -- are they --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. There are some guns that the
Customs Service has, but it's not that large a number. It's smaller.
They're in Customs warehouses. But the 600,000 and the million, those
two numbers are permits and applications for permits. They don't
represent guns that are in the country.

Q Permits for importation?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes.

Q When you say 10 rounds are legal, how many bullets is that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Ten bullets.

Q Ten bullets, without reloading?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes.

Q If you had the authority, if the government had the authority to
ban the weapons that are being banned today before now, why wasn't the
authority used until now?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: This was a process. The weapons
were, in essence, banned in 1989. What happened is the modifications
took place. It's kind of an incremental basis. And then in 1994
Congress passed the Assault Weapons Ban, and in that ban was the
recognition that large-capacity magazines are something that should be
prohibited. So you take all of that together, moving over time, I think
this is kind of a natural progression. I personally don't see it as
being a problem.

Q But why wouldn't these have been banned by Congress? Why
wouldn't that have covered these weapons, if large-capacity magazines --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, Congress only banned the
magazines and then they banned 19 specific weapons by model number.
These weapons were not included.